P.S.  A clarification. I left out a word in my last message--the word
SENTENCE.  I didn't intend to say that participial phrases withing the
sentence are not modifiers, but rather that they are not sentence
modifiers, as absolutes are.

Martha >

It's interesting, Bill, that you've never been called upon to teach your
>students about absolute phrases.  However, I can certainly believe that
>because, in my experience, absolutes are not common structures in
>expository writing.  Most of the examples are from fiction, especially from
>writers like Faulkner.  I suspect that if you were analyzing Faulkner's
>stylistic choices you might be so called upon.
>
>However, in this case we have a question from a teacher who apparently
>feels comfortable discussing nonfinite reduced clauses with her students.
>Those students are trying to figure out if this particular verb form is
>finite--and, if not, why not.  Isn't this the perfect opportunity for Janet
>to discuss absolute phrases--or, if she prefers, participial clauses
>functioning as sentence modifiers.  Or perhaps she can get to that
>particular kind of participial phrase by looking first at plain old
>participial phrases functioning within the sentence, rather than as
>modifiers--both active and passive.  In one case, the noun modified is the
>actor in relation to the participle, in the other, it is the object.
>Certainly, Johanna's test of tense is a good one too, a test that takes
>advantage of the students' innate language expertise.
>
>I really don't understand the reluctance of our profession to help our
>students learn labels for the grammatical structures we expect them to
>manipulate.  We are the only discipline that shies away from giving our
>students a language with which to discuss what they're working with.  We
>humans learn what the world is all about when we learn to label its parts.
>
>
>Martha
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Well, yes, I do know a bit about absolutes and participles, though I've
>>never been called upon to teach about them. But I was trying to help Janet
>>skip all of the extra explanation and stay within her original approach.
>>
>>I must confess that I cannot imagine telling my students about a
>>"nonfinite, reduced passive clause," much less an "absolute phrase . . . a
>>noun followed by a participial phrase as a modifier."  Maybe I could if I
>>didn't have to cover phonemics and morphemics in the same course, but few
>>students can even pass a test on basic sentence structure. Most students
>>begin the course with zero knowledge of grammar.
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>>Golly, Bill, I thought my explanation was straightforward too, when I
>>>identified the structure as an absolute phrase--that is a noun followed by
>>>a participial phrase as a modifier.  When participles modify nouns, their
>>>relationship is a subject/predicate relationship--a  reduced clause, which
>>>you have illustrated.  When the participle is passive (fixed) the
>>>underlying clause is passive.
>>>
>>>I suspect you know enough grammar to respond to Martha's analysis!
>>>
>>>Martha
>>>
>>>>While I can't claim to know enough grammar to respond to Martha's analysis
>>>>of the construction in question, I confess I don't understand why the
>>>>"nonfinite, reduced passive clause" can't be explained in a straightforward
>>>>way:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I stood still, and I fixed my whole attention upon the motion of her
>>>>fingers.
>>>>
>>>>I stood still, and my whole attention was fixed (by me) upon the motion of
>>>>her fingers.
>>>>
>>>>(eliminate the "was" and the "and")
>>>>I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motion of her fingers.
>>>>
>>>>In other words, "attention" is the direct object.
>>>>
>>>>Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Dear ATEG Listers:
>>>>>
>>>>>In the following sentence, "I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon
>>>>>the
>>>>>motion of her fingers, " (Helen Keller), I analyze 'my whole attention
>>>>>fixed
>>>>>upon the motion of her fingers' as a nonfinite, reduced passive clause.  I
>>>>>was trying to explain this to my class recently, and I found that though
>>>>>I am
>>>>>convinced that 'fixed' is nonfinite, none of my usual explanations worked.
>>>>>It simply refused to reveal itself neatly as nonfinite.
>>>>>
>>>>>When I am working with clauses having transitive verbs, I usually use
>>>>>passive
>>>>>transformations as a way of clarifying for myself the elements of that
>>>>>clause.  After my students had trouble seeing the clause as nonfinite, I
>>>>>spent a few minutes after class working it over.  I first tried to make it
>>>>>work as a simple transitive verb sentence with  'fixed' as a finite
>>>>>verb: 'my
>>>>>whole attention fixed upon the motion of her fingers.'  What I discovered
>>>>>is
>>>>>that although it is possible to write and say such a sentence, it doesn't
>>>>>behave like a transitive verb sentence, or like other clauses with 'fix' as
>>>>>their verb.
>>>>>
>>>>>For example
>>>>>'The man fixed the picture to the wall.'  This is easily made passive:
>>>>>'The picture was fixed to the wall by the man.'  However, in the case of
>>>>>'my
>>>>>whole attention fixed upon the motion of her fingers,' I cannot make it
>>>>>passive because there is no direct object, yet 'fixed' seems to call for a
>>>>>direct object.
>>>>>
>>>>>If I change the sentence to 'my whole attention fixed itself upon the
>>>>>motion
>>>>>of her fingers,' the passive version is *Itself was fixed upon the motion
>>>>>of
>>>>>her fingers by my whole attention.  Well, that won't work.  The problem
>>>>>seems
>>>>>to be that 'my whole attention' as the subject can't actually perform the
>>>>>action of 'fixing'; 'my whole attention' is actually the thing that is
>>>>>being
>>>>>fixed and therefore is the object.
>>>>>
>>>>>I finally decided that this sentence's recalcitrance was itself evidence
>>>>>that
>>>>>'my whole attention fixed upon the motion of her fingers' is actually a
>>>>>reduced version of ''my whole attention was fixed upon the motion of her
>>>>>finge
>>>>>rs (by me),' the active version being 'I fixed my whole attention upon the
>>>>>motion of her fingers.'
>>>>>
>>>>>So I have two questions.
>>>>>
>>>>>1.  Do you agree that 'my whole attention fixed upon the motion of her
>>>>>fingers' is actually a nonfinite clause?  Might there be an acceptable
>>>>>finite
>>>>>reading of this?
>>>>>
>>>>>2.  How would you explain this to a group of students who are studying to
>>>>>be
>>>>>teachers and who are none too comfortable with the concepts finiteness and
>>>>>non-finiteness?  I've already rejected "Because I said so."
>>>>>
>>>>>I feel compelled to add that I believe that the ability to determine
>>>>>whether
>>>>>a verb is finite or not in a given clause is going to be useful to these
>>>>>students in their future roles as English and language arts teachers.  I'm
>>>>>not just doing this to torture them --or myself.
>>>>>
>>>>>Janet Castilleja
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>William J. McCleary
>>>>3247 Bronson Hill Road
>>>>Livonia, NY 14487
>>>>716-346-6859
>>
>>
>>William J. McCleary
>>3247 Bronson Hill Road
>>Livonia, NY 14487
>>716-346-6859